Protection of whistleblowers and open organisational culture

Procedures for reporting breaches of integrity violations are established by law, and include both internal and external channels

Review of legislation. The reporting person must be free to choose between the internal and external (or public disclosure) channels. There can be no hierarchy of internal and external reporting channels.

Whistleblowers are protected against retaliation by law

Review of legislation. The definition of a whistleblower must be in line with the 2019 EU Directive on Protection of Whistleblowers. Criminal, civil or administrative penalties are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the rules on whistleblower protection. Penalties against those who take retaliatory or other adverse actions against reporting persons can discourage further such actions. Penalties against persons who report or publicly disclose information on breaches which are demonstrated to be knowingly false are also necessary to deter further malicious reporting and preserve the credibility of the system. The proportionality of such penalties should ensure that they do not have a dissuasive effect on potential whistleblowers. Those surrounding a whistleblower, such as facilitators, individuals and non-profit legal entities, are also protected.

The confidentiality of the reporting person is protected by law

Review of legislation. Both internal and external channels of reporting must protect the confidentiality of the identity of the reporting person and any third party and prevent access by non-authorised staff members. The competent authorities must have in place channels that ensure confidentiality for receiving and handling information provided by the reporting person on breaches, and that enable the durable storage of information to allow for further investigations. Normal complaints channels should be separate from whistleblowing channels.

Multiple reporting channels are mandatory by law

Review of legislation. The reporting channels should enable persons to report in writing or to report orally, or both. Upon request by the reporting person, such channels should also enable reporting by means of physical meetings, within a reasonable timeframe.

Reporting channels must by law acknowledge receipt of reports, provide follow-up, feedback on the outcome, and forward to relevant authorities

Review of legislation. Reporting channels must comply with the following requirements: a) acknowledge receipt of the report within seven days of receiving it, unless the reporting person explicitly requests otherwise, or there is a reasonable belief that such acknowledgment would risk the protection of the reporting person; b) provide follow-up on the report; c) provide feedback to the reporting person not exceeding a three-month timeframe, or six months if it is duly justified; d) communicate the outcome of the investigation triggered by the report to the reporting person; e) communicate the appropriate information of the report to the relevant institutions, bodies, offices, or agencies for further investigation and action.

Designated authority(ies) exist to receive external whistle-blower reports

Review of regulations. The competent authorities could be judicial authorities, regulatory or supervisory bodies competent in the specific areas concerned, or authorities of a more general competence at a central level, law enforcement agencies, anticorruption bodies or ombudsperson institutions.

Anonymous reports are accepted and systemically followed-up

Review of annual report(s) from the latest full calendar year of the competent authorities to identify receipt and investigation of anonymous reports. The report must be publicly available. Any information about follow-up counts as meeting the criterion.

A public website provides information on whistleblowers’ rights, procedures for reporting, and contact details

Review of the public website. The competent authority(ies) must publish in their website(s) the conditions for being granted protection as a whistle-blower, facilitator or relative of a whistleblower. The website should also provide the contact details for external reporting, including the postal address and telephone number with information whether or not the conversations are recorded. The procedure after filing the report should be explained, including whether and how the competent authority may request more information or further clarification and the deadlines for providing feedback and follow-up reports.

Perception of ease of reporting corruption (%)

Analysis of survey responses from a representative sample of the population to the following question: “What do you think, if you witnessed a case of corruption and you wanted to officially report it, how easy or difficult would this be for you to do?” Answer options are: Very difficult, Somewhat difficult, Neither difficult nor easy, Somewhat easy, Very easy, Do not know, Prefer not to answer. The minimum and maximum thresholds are based on the Special Eurobarometer 523 from March-April 2022. Points are allocated based on the percentage of respondents who replied “Somewhat easy” or “Very easy” to the survey question (x): • x < 10% = 0 points. • 10% ≤ x < 90% = linear function. • x ≥ 90% = 3 points.